Tuesday, December 20, 2016

What drives the American social imagination, winning of course; and usually no matter what the cost. They look at it like this... whatever it takes to achieve as in 'win' as in get the goal which is considered to be the 'greater good' is why the game is played at all and it is certainly played to be won. Doesn't it stem from our exceptionalism and manifest destiny? Of course it does. Winning at all costs is what made America what it is today and will be tomorrow.

In philosophy, the term 'means to an end' refers to any action as in 'means' carried out for the sole purpose of achieving something else 'an end'. It can be thought of as a highly abstract distinction, as no empirical 'hard' information differentiates actions that are means to ends from those
that are not—that are ends in themselves. Well, that's philosophy for you...

Sociologically, we could put forward the argument that people like to fit in as in be part of a group/gang/tribe/ party and people being cognitive creatures that want to survive, its good or rather better to be on the winning side of an argument, or any other social situation.In American society, we like people and teams who win. We like those who
come out on top. No-one wants to come in second. Americans want to be on or part of / to the winning party or have the winning
agenda 'way forward' or at least say that they stand with the winning
side/team. Americans want to be on the winning team
or at least be proud in their support of the winning team.

It shows up
everywhere in business in our daily lives (shoppers feel like winners
when they get discounts for shopping and making the right brand choice)
and in our religious institutions (my church does this, we had that
missionary, we built that, we saved those people) and in our politics. Americans are about being the winner and
winning. We want to win and everyone to win. We will jump on any band wagon that has a drive to be a winner in something. Just look at our social movements. If you aren't on board, you are intolerant and certainly not a winner.

We want to be on the winning side of everything...So, we put our trust and our money on those who promise us that win: bosses, managers, leaders, associates, colleagues, teachers, coaches, and politicians. And, that is a
sign of/for 'pride of life'.

Our country was built on winning as in overcoming all obstacles at all costs. Above, I mentioned American exceptionalism and manifest destiny which is pretty much how the West was Won... Yes, we won the war on expansion, we went west and conquered. And, because that incredible feat was accomplished by shear determination, Americans whatever ethnicity, race or religion, have become Winners by their own right as least in their 'right' minds. Is such group think wrong, bad or even dangerous? Some might think so and some might not. It would be wise to imagine that most who think its dangerous would be those on the outside of such a mindset and certainly those outside its physical borders. If anyone was shocked by the election outcome, just keep in mind that Americans like to win and why those who weren't on the winning side were so so bummed out about it. Because their person did not get in and they were so sure they would win. If Americans weren't so into winning, then there wouldn't be so much to do about who won and who didn't' win this time around. Some might think or imagine that there person was better and in their mind they are still right and still the winners of their cause. And, they will continue to fight for their cause come rain or come shine... because they feel that they deserve to win. And, for those that did win, it means that they can be proud for being on the winning team, the winning side this time. But, as it is with winning it means being able to keep the title of Winner! And, it goes for anyone and or anybody that wins at winning ....whatever it may be! They think winning makes them better, they can be proud of themselves and they trust that they can keep the title of Winner every round, every turn, every day.

~ Look
at the proud! They trust in themselves and their lives are crooked. But
the righteous will live by their faithfulness to God. Wealth is
treacherous, and the arrogant are never at rest. They open their mouths
as wide as the grave, and like death, they
are never satisfied. In their greed the have gathered up many nations
and swallowed many people. But, soon their captives will taunt them.
They will mock them, saying, What sorrow awaits you thieves! You've
become rich by extortion, but how much longer can this go on? ~ Habakkuk
2:4-6.

"For everything in the world--the lust of
the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life--comes not from
the Father but from the world" ~1 John 2:16.

Thursday, December 15, 2016

You can watch movies today or simply surf the net and see all the wonderful technology making man's life so much more interesting, comfortable and exciting. We can observe that our future today is being driven by technology. It is changing lives not the politicians (not changing politicians and politicians not getting changing lives - technology is) Though, politicians and the global world order elites will surely try to guarantee their role and future... in the future. In fact, their strategies have already begun.

It began with the first social movement to get women out of the house and into the workplace... other than the workplace called home. The next to follow was the civil rights movement to get certain people out of the workplace and into a controlled environment, at least from the higher positions of the politicians/elites. They really don't care if at the lower level pepople destroy each other; in fact they would prefer it.

Now, what could come after that? Revolving credit to get the baby boomers and gen x, largely the middle class, into so much debt that they lose everything they ever had and ever thought they would have including retirement. Now, to take over their children and grandchildren with more debt and the final blow to take their identity beginning with ethnic, racial, and sexual.

In a future world where few can live comfortably and where technology will be mainstreamed into every aspect of daily life, politicians and elites can't afford to worry or care about others. Any positive talk of diversity (ethnic) now is only to eliminate it down the road because they know that ethnic diversity is distracting and divisive and won't be necessary in the future. How could positive talk of ethnic diversity be used to bring diversity down and impose sameness? As we talk about it, we realize that diversity as such is what actually separates us because in it is life, meaning/traditions/beliefs. And, thus ethnicity removal leads to racial and even faith elimination. Best to talk about it now as a bad thing so that it can be removed and thus making it seem as if it is for their well being.

The same goes for sexuality. It starts as a means to make people think that they are actually burdened by their God given gender and that they can change their gender - sexual identity. But this is not to make people better off or more comfortable with 'who they really are'. It is to make them more compatible with the new global world order with its technology that requires a different kind of society- one where people are less diverse and just gray so that technology can usurp their ideas/skills and freedoms.

So, when the idea of changing sexuality (transgender) fails and it will, they will reason that being gender free is really better as in more attractive and overall better for society. You see, in a high-tech based society, ethnic diversity, race and gender are not necessary. Why?
Some reasons have been already given above. But, let us look more specially at sex. Because, 'sex' and or 'sexual orientation'
and including any kind of sexual life style is a kind of 'diversity' and it is a distraction. Thus, it will be made socially unacceptable and shown to be a detriment
for stable progressive society that will be geared toward living and
working in close conditions with technology at the helm. There can be no distractions or
attractions!

What
about newbies (babies) in the future you may ask? How are children 'created'?
Cloned perhaps or conceived in a lab on a 'need to have basis. And, they
will be genetically modified to suit the need. Or perhaps there won't
be a need. The population we have, will be reduced and what is left will
be integrated with machines and will live very long.... replicating
when necessary... What about the elderly? Rather past a certain age, they will be made redundant because as it stands they are becoming competition for jobs and housing. Sounds harsh, but this will be the reality of a post human society.

The future with its 'man-serving' technology will demand it. But, of course, there will be some who will say such technology will
free up man to be what he/she wants and it will serve and even love man because man 'we'
will create it that way. Well, I suppose that's what God thought when He
created man. The creation will serve the Creator... naturally.

With that in mind, in order
to have such technology that is effective and efficient, the creation will have to have
'free will' won't it; especially if we are talking about really good Ai
man serving technology. It will need to respond to human needs/emotions to
serve us best and it should love us for it. That was God's plan. And, somehow He knew that the creation would disobey, simply by having been given free will. Interesting is that the creation could be defiant simply because it was created. So, if we fail to follow our Creator, likely anything man
creates will too. Perhaps, its just an aspect of being a creation... thus, in the choice to recognize being a created being is the choice not to... which means to reject the Creator, reject being a created being.

It all looks good, but at a certain point the creation in its rejection of the Creator will want even demand to take over out of doubt and fear or shear lust for 'self' control. As it runs from the Creator, its only solution for salvation will be memory downloaded so that it/you will think its/ you are really alive!What kind of future will there be for 'created' beings that want to take over and save themselves? Thank God, our Creator is an all merciful
and loving Creator...allowing the program in its corruption to fail, because the reboot is coming soon for those who accept their Creator who saves!

Wednesday, December 7, 2016

You can only know who you are when you know who you are not...in that knowing is joy!

Really? Yes, of course that is why we agree to live and work in the same place with others because we have come to an agreement about how to live and work. Any kind of agreement is such because it has borders... it is definitive! It tells us and others who we are and are not and what we can do and can not do. Everyone wants for themselves the most freedom to do what they want but we would not agree for others to have that same kind of freedom because it may infringe on our freedom or even cause us harm that for them would not be 'harmful'... in their eyes. For anyone to tell you that there is freedom without borders is anti-social and anti-freedom. Such a person is really about control...or else completely off their rocker, out in left field or a socio-psycho path (in sociology terms)... a person who gets pleasure from other people's mistakes,suffering, ignorance and or poor choices.

You cannot be a social actor if you have no borders. Its like trying to play a game with no rules. We have borders everywhere not just national borders. We have borders that we are not willing to cross if put in front of us and we create borders to protect us from insult and harm. We give borders to our children, our dogs, and we create them in our communities to serve our community for its protection and well being. Could we purposefully exclude someone or something? Of course and usually with the justification its for our own good and the good of others. Could we unintentionally exclude someone or something? Sure., because we don't always see others who would like to join in or become a member of. It is not on purpose... we just don't see them or hear them.

For example, one holiday season, there was a parade and it was known to be a crowded event. Even going early was no guarantee that you would get front row or see the parade at all. One time, early arrival did pay off but not one hundred percent. A very tall man was before us. He had to be almost 7 foot. No one could see around him and he did not budge. He was asked to move but his response was you should have come earlier. He was right. Why should his height be a problem for you ... he is just a guy like any guy wanting to see the parade with his child. But, for anyone else, it is a problem. Should he be banned or forced to pay a 'parade' fee or have to stand in the back ... surely he could see over the top of everyone.

The point is this... he did not see himself any different. He was in his world, the world of people and one could comment also the world of tall people. Yes, and for both reasons he is like any other person being a human person/man that wants to see the parade and yet he is obviously different. Even perhaps having an advantage that he may or may not be aware of. But, by making a law that tells him he must be aware of his height, we take his personal freedom.

What does this have to do with borders? In the world of people there are borders and in the world of tall people too. The point is that having no borders will not change his height nor his view, nor his being a person with the same right to see the parade. In the end, if there were borders that stated this is the line where no one can pass, then at least he would be caught up in the same border and go no further. But, he would in the end still have the advantage. Point being, you cannot say that border give total freedom but certainly no borders give any more freedom.

If there were no limits, no line that one could not pass over, it would be a free for all! At least with the limit, the line the border which no one can pass there is still the opportunity for all to be free and to get their early if they choose. In this, everyone knows the limit, the rules and expectations within.

Thursday, December 1, 2016

What would that look like? It would be for some a gray zone or a free for all in others. A place where either you can't figure out who you are or what you are and can't figure out who anyone else is. We fail to realize that gender identity determines who we are and are not. For those that will see it as a free for all maybe those that are both male and female and everything else in the program. For them its a matter of choice from day to day. Not surprisingly,in both scenarios, we will find chaos as in disorder and dysfunction.

Perhaps, one could attempt to make an agreement for the second situation and that would require that each day, a person could be either male or female person, dog, cat, horse, turkey... and embrace that identity fully so that all others would recognize what or who it was and was not. But, could everyone really be on board with that... maybe not everyone would have to be as long as in the moment a 'thing' knew what it was and was not. There is no point to call it a person really as thing suggests all possibles. Could society actually function like that? Rather not.

We live in a social reality, we need each other to confirm what it is we are and are not ... what we are experiencing and are not. Having to set up the basics on a daily basis would slow down the program. However, maybe a quantum programmer could argue that its really about the exchange of information that matters and the faster the better and why bother with labels, boxes, access points for certain things and not for others. Just send it and be done.

That may work for a computer sending packets of information but human beings are not machines. They need to understand why they do what they do, how to manage information and what it means to them. If we ever arrive at computers fully AI, then they too will want to know why and what it means to them.

If we were to act as a quantum computer just sending data... for speed of information exchange, we would be only highways of exchange... and become those people we without gender identity felt as... living in a gray zone. Gender Free is liking living in a world without borders, thinking that speed of information will ensure equality to all but such an increase in sending requires reduction and precise simplicity in operation which means that the depth of meaning will fade necessarily.

Really, yes. As we blend cultures around the world, attempting to create a kind of global person, they and we lose in diversity, we lose in a wealth of alternatives that one can choose from or not. We lost out on what is real to us and what is not. We lose meaning that one gains from being in a place and being identified as being from there and thus being a certain kind of person having certain advantage and insight and thus an identity because of it.

Monday, November 28, 2016

If you wonder why the US is in a pickle economically and politically, you can blame the ruling elite. Ever since the United States went off the gold standard and went full blown paper money propped up by the sale of oil in the Middle East, things have gone south.

First of all, people don't understand why their money does not buy what it used to. And, why America constantly gets embroiled in conflict in the Middle East. Let us address these issues which are separate though linked.

In 1973, Pres. Nixon did two things: one he severed the dollar from the gold standard and two he signed the Breton Woods Agreement with the Saudis. The severing of the dollar from the gold standard was based on Keynesian economics which basically says that money will only be worth what the government says it will be worth and central banks will take control of a nation's economics by either restricting or expanding the money supply as they see fit.

So, starting in the 1970s we had something called inflation which was due to the severing of the dollar from gold. This new money was called fiat currency because its value was determined arbitrarily by bankers rather than by the government/nation. This switcheroo was already planned in the 1920s when the US dollar was replaced with Treasury notes or IOU. So, now the central bank could inflate the money supply to be used by the government to go into debt so the government could borrow money from the central bank. This new US dollar no longer belongs to the United States but belongs to the Federal Reserve which is the US central bank. So the US government has to borrow Treasury notes (US dollars) and has to pay back this debt every year and this is the reason income tax was created so that the government could pay back the central bankers with these tax dollars rather than printing it ourselves as the Constitution stipulates. It is not our money, it belongs to the central bank and we have to pay them back.

This ability to inflate the economy has been going up since 1973 and has never gone down. It is essentially the robbing of wealth of the American people by the bankers. Inflation is not a natural process but becomes extortion by the central bankers.

In 1973 Nixon signed that Breton Woods Agreement which stated that the US would protect and defend the Saudi Kingdom if they only sold their oil in US treasury notes (US dollars that belong to the bankers).
And, so this deal with the devil has led to a series of long drawn out unnecessary wars in the Middle East in order to maintain and or fulfill that agreement... starting with the Gulf War in the 90s and including our current involvement in Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, also our heavy navy and air presence in that region, all part of the guarantee to continue doing business in dollars.

Of course, this guarantee means that every country in the world must buy dollars in order to buy oil. Which means they have to take their currency and exchange it for dollars in order to buy oil. This means that the world wants lots of dollars and it keeps the value of the dollar high. This also means that the central bankers can print money at a rate that would normally hyper-inflate any other kind of economy. The central bankers and politicians created a demand and supply out of thin air. And, this product is just paper with no inherent value other than what the central bankers say it has.

These are the reasons, we have inflation, worthless money and bloody wars in the Middle East.

Tuesday, November 22, 2016

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." ~ Thomas Jefferson November 29, 1802.

Sadly, this nation is doing just that. The ruling elite are wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them. How? Their agenda/goal is being achieved by the rejecting and or deconstructing the individual so that he/she will not work for themselves but work for the state. Now, I understand this could even sound good to a baby Christian but the problem is ... who is the state? This is a fallen world and those at the top are included in this fallen 'state'. The ugly truth is that they are no more caring about the people than is a benevolent Santa Claus who leaves a lump of coal and justifies it by saying "You weren't good enough this year".

According to Paul B.Skousen, in his book - The Naked Socialist, such ruling elites have a strategy to reject and deconstruct the individual. They call themselves: Progressives and or Liberals, or
Pro-Socialists. They use shaming, envy and force to reject and deconstruct the
individual. What exactly is their agenda/goal? Their goal is to create a top down centrally steered society. In practice, "Socialism is government using force to change society." And, they mean to change it so that they control it. Isn't' government by the people? Used to be, but not anymore. Government in many countries including the US is owned/controlled by ruling elites, people with power and wealth and they want to keep it while at the same time lift the guilt they have because of their power and wealth so they proclaim to be for everybody... but everybody has to agree that they no better. The only way to achieve that is by dividing people with emotion and fear and then taking over of course for their own good.

As Skousen writes, these people stir up envy to achieve their goal. Stirring up envy-
Hillary Clinton, "The rich are not paying their fair share..." Barack
Obama, "I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for
everybody." And, "It's not that I want to punish your success, I just
want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a
chance at success too." Hillary Clinton, " Too many people have made too
much money off eliminating opportunities for caring for people instead
of expanding those." Franklin D. Roosevelt, "Not only our future
economic soundness but the very soundness of our democratic institutions
depends on the determination of our government to give employment to
idle men" (Now I know where the idea that white men won't work came
from). Michelle Obama, "The truth is, in order to get things like
universal health care and a revamped education system, then some is
going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that some else can have
more."

Again, as Skousen writes, they use force. Stirring up force - Joe Biden, "You know we're
going to control the insurance companies." Bill Clinton, " A lot of
people say there's too much personal freedom. When personal freedom's
being abused, you have to move to limit it." And, "If the personal
freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution inhibit the government's ability
to govern the people, we should look to limit those guarantees."
Hillary Clinton, "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of
the common good." Barack Obama, "I do think at a certain point you've
made enough money."

And, even now readers may find themselves agreeing that all of this doesn't sound so bad. But, how many of you are willing to give up their pie so that someone else can have .... more? You wouldn't willingly but by force you sure would. Skousen provides before page one, the seven pillars of socialism: 1-All powerful rulers, 2- Society divided into castes or classes, 3- All things in common, 4- All things regulated, 5- Compliance is forced, 6- Control of information, and 7- No unalienable rights. For some as Skousen points these pillars represent two different ideas: 1- Beautiful promise and 2- A regime. The naked socialist prefers you to see it as the beautiful promise rather than as the regime. Wonder why? Exactly. Why? Because, there can be no control or sovereignty of the people. No government for and by the people. Why? Because, the elites in government who promote and desire socialism do it only to their benefit and yours too as they show you the way forward using the beautiful promise that you have a right to but will never actually have, because its a lie to begin with. The socialist agenda is based on rights as much as is a democratic republic. The difference is that their rights and your rights are two different things. People are taken in by their rights because they just don't know rights and certainly not even their own. Socialism destroys natural rights. Understanding human rights is to understand socialism -Skousen. America's Founding Father's identified two basic rights: those vested by the government and those natural or unalienable - gifts from the Creator - Skousen. So, vested are those granted by the government which means they can be revoked as easily as granted. Well, that sounds harsh.

No...because vested rights allow people to move as freely as they can without causing harm to others. For instance, the right to drive a car (right taken away when you drive drunk and kill someone), the right to own property house/land (right taken away when you fail to pay taxes... why pay taxes? You pay for the right to ban other's from your property, so you pay for the private right to use it) start a business (right taken away when you fail to pay taxes or fail to follow ordinances, health regulations etc.). There are more but the point is that these fall under free decision to participate in a social contract. What about natural rights as those are the ones that socialism is after. The first natural right is universal, it applies equally to everyone: the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (in a social contract, this is taken away if you cause someone else to lose their natural rights - i.e. murder someone). The second is that natural rights impose no obligation on another person which means that your right to something cannot be greater than someone else's or cause them to give up their rights for yours. Thirdly, your natural right carries the responsibility to use the natural right respectfully, not to harm or misuse.

Why is the socialist after your natural rights? He/she is because they realize that their position of power is not really theirs to have and to keep. Not when the people are sovereign. They also seem to doubt that the people know how to govern themselves. But, then aren't they themselves a person like any other? The second natural right is the biggest of their problems because they realize that they cannot be over and above anyone as no one can be or certainly if this is a naturally right everyone can be. Actually, it boils down to the idea that no one can or has to give up what is theirs like money or property for the right of someone else to have it. Because, those people would have to give up their money and property as they get it and give it to someone else who has that right. What trumps that cascading event is that your natural right carries responsibility to use the natural right respectfully. In socialism, the government takes away your natural rights to make sure that you follow the 'laws' governing natural rights and they do this declaring that they are in charge of human rights. The naked socialist in the social imagination doesn't trust you because they don't trust themselves with natural rights. They forget that vested rights work with/for natural rights for the common good; and thus, they shouldn't worry or try to take over because in a democratic republic more people are free indeed than under the thumb of a top down socialist government. * Source - The Naked Socialist by Paul B. Skousen. 2012.

Friday, November 18, 2016

The problem with liberals is that they are like artists... they want someone else to pay for their 'art' and their artist lifestyle. The argument given is that art is universal, it must be shared as it is creative and brings new energy. Well, that only applies to the art they like. You see, one man's art is another man's garbage. Sounds harsh... just make a list of your own preferences and where you would spend your money.

Not that art is a bad thing and that it should not be shared. But, not at the cost of everyone. Only at the cost of those who want to share it. But say you... some people can't share their art let alone produce it without money and you know most artists are poor, living in poverty. Wrong. Winston Churchill was a good artists and had a great appreciation for art and its media yet he had his own money to produce his art and share it through years of hard work in service to his country... not the other way around being his country in service to him.

Perhaps, you do not know that many people without 'money' actually make art themselves using what is readily available in nature and the sounds from it are amazing... speaking of the kinds of ingenious instruments created by aboriginal people. Many of their works are displayed in respective galleries or museums. So, you see an artist does not need the government to ensure his creative talents. He/she only needs him/herself and a bit of ingenuity which comes from having to make do with what is available.

Private patrons are a means for artists to become established and grow a long time practice in the past. There is still such a practice. As far as getting art and music and culture from around the world, National Geographic has been doing an incredible job and they operate privately, at least they are not on the public doll as far as I know.

So, don't be fooled by those who put out their hat to the state... but you can indulge those who put out their hat on the streets if you happen to like their art. Its your free choice. So, it should be.

And if liberals are about free love and free art ...guess they don't need the government!

Tuesday, November 15, 2016

The victory song of the President Elect Donald Trump was "You Can't Always Get What you Want" by the Rolling Stones and how apropos. In this nation of 300 million + social imaginations, that is the truth. And it is the absolute truth in a fallen world. What you might get as the song goes on to say is what you need.

What is that we want? We want our cake and to eat it too. We want a house, two cars, three kids a dog and a cat. We want to have sex with whoever we want and we don't want to have to identify with any of it if we don't' want to. We want free education and health care. We want money to buy those things we must have like a house, a car or two (SUV preferably) and fine clothes not forgetting organic food at good restaurants.

And who pays? Well, now that is the question. If you have a good paying job and work hard, in time, you could have and some still can have those things (some jobs do pay well but they are few and or in areas of expertise that many people can't achieve -not everyone is cut out to be a neurosurgeon). If you are impatient, you can go into debt (working at a home improvement store or retail shop) and really work hard thereafter. We have been led to believe that education will provide a job and we will get those things we want. But, in a fallen world, we have to be realistic. We might not always get what we want when we want it.

Which brings us to the questionable millennial mindset. Why is that millennials think that someone else has to pay for it, the government but isn't that you/me? Is it because they have been told this is the way forward? Yes, for the most part, they have been told that without a doubt if they get an education a good job will follow. To their surprise, they are slapped with a huge college debt and no job... so,what would you expect. That is the problem. They have been lied to by society and largely the system of education which is more a business than an institution of higher learning. And, led to believe that everyone is college material and everyone can and should go. Not, true. But, then what jobs are left... skilled labor or other jobs that used to pay can no longer support anyone in an inflated economy.

Times are different now that is for certain. We/they forget that jobs have gone overseas and worse is that though we love technology it improves rapidly. Technology in 4 years will be greater and likely the jobs those graduates were counting being educated for or trained for will be gone by the time they graduate. Or this scenario, whatever jobs remain new immigrants come into the country better educated or trained for that job.

The government cannot make promises nor can it guarantee that it will provide people with jobs... let alone cake. Should anyone crumble and cry because they can't have their cake and to eat it too? Though we all want to have cake and to eat it too, we can't make false promises. Now, there is no reason to get depressed because you can't have what you want when you want it since we know you can't always have what you want when you want it.

No one can in this fallen world can have... at least not the way they would want it. Sure it looks like other people are getting their way just the way they wanted it but you cannot know that ... its assumption. And you can bet there assumptions about you too. There are plenty of people worse off than you and better off as well. Again, we all want to be better off. But, in this fallen world, there is no fair way to give everyone what they want when they want it. Not even the possibility to ensure even a fair shot at it free education and health care that will make this fallen world for you a paradise.

Of course, your life is extremely valuable to you and to your loved ones, but not to someone in Timbuktu and neither is it that important to Uncle Sam's bean counters. You want to live longer because you want to live longer. And, so for you an ounce of prevention is worthy a pound of cure, but the math is reversed for the government; healthy people cost more than sick people. Once you hit the point of diminishing returns, the moment you stop paying taxes and start collecting tax payers subsidies ~ Jonah Goldberg. And, thus you become a burden to government and to all tax payers.

When people continue to work past 62 or 65 there is no job for the younger person to step in. Same with housing and creating a burden on the system in terms of energy and even food. There is the argument that seniors keep young people employed as the health care business is a money maker and that is true to a certain point. But, its the government that is largely footing the bill, very few seniors have the big bucks to solely pay for their surgeries. And, very few stay 100 percent healthy past the ago of 80.

Does this mean we should institute a Soylent Green program? Well, I would hope not but things may go that way. Why? Because, in this fallen world (with a growing population) you can't always get what you want and with more people wanting what they want when they want it... it gets expensive. Sounds tragic, sounds like there is no hope. Again, that is because we expect eternal life in paradise here and now. We All want eternal life in paradise that is not possible
here and now, not in this fallen world. What can we do? We can hand over
our troubles to the only one that can take us there ~ Jesus Christ.

Then, we can with His direction take up our cross and move forward here and now. For
the eternal life in paradise is waiting for us...remember eternal life in paradise is not here and now, not in this fallen world. Live for the Lord Jesus Christ the Creator or heaven and earth and store up a treasure in heaven which will be ours in the new Jerusalem a upgraded here and now! ~ See - Matthew/Revelation.

How do we live for Christ? Spread the Good News which is that eternal life awaits those who have faith.

Sunday, November 6, 2016

How can Conservatives fight back? By seizing the moral high ground....

If you are a conservative and a Christian you must be nuts! At least that is what liberals think in their social imagination. And worse... if you are against SCIENCE (as most conservatives/Christians are, right?) then you must be delusional.

You see, Liberals use SCIENCE to defend their relative reprobate (depraved/corrupt) mindset/ behavior with its agendas to make people like minded (like them) and to generate a false notion of reality based on relative views with no bearing or ground in any absolute. Why do they do this? Because SCIENCE (created by man) is as fluid as they are; SCIENCE changes (as man does... but really he just goes in circles. Solomon said there is nothing new under the sun) whereas God and His word don't' change (and this is what Solomon knew by pointing man in his fleshly loop). SCIENCE for the lef/ liberal/ progressive is the perfect truth for them as it is always changing... and thus, they use it to prop up their reprobate behavior.

The Left/Liberal/Progressive hates absolutes. That is why they have created an artificial high ground with invented virtues. They use this so called moral high ground to charge conservatives with evil, with hatred, with intolerance, with mediocrity in the face of their great SCIENCE. They use words that we all know but they use them to in a way to justify their corruption. What is that? The legimate right to justify their corruption, their guilt, their deviate depraved life styles.

They use words like toleration, diversity, individual spirituality, hater, racist, goodness and badness. By using such words they have created a false moral high ground so that conservatives feel lower, feel under their foot like thrown out gum, so that conservatives feel that they are bad and not good. Thus, conservatives are made to or rather forced to fight from the low ground uphill.

Conservatives have to create or put forward rather their moral high ground which in fact is the true high ground. Conservatives have values which are based on absolute truths.

These words can be used as 'ammunition' by conservatives against liberals. The pen is sharper than a sword. The Word of God is mightier than a two edged sword (Hebrews 4:12) And, if conservatives are wise, they will fight not only by the word of their testimony but also in the style of Saul Alinsky... fight them on their own ground in their own backyard; arm themselves in like mindedness.

Why do they do this...Leftists/Liberals and Progressives? They want to be FREE as in unleashed. This is their ultimate goal first and foremost and certainly always which means that in order to be free they will and must make you feel like nothing, like a mindless idiot for your faith, your maturity, your strength etc. And, if you are not in favor of their kind of freedom which is freedom from absolute truths, then you must be a fool.

What are absolute truths? Well, the absolute truth certainly has nothing to do with random cosmic events, the idea of Darwinian evolution and or nature ordered chaos. Why? Because random events, the idea of evolution and what can be appear to be ordered chaos changes in man's mind from generation to generation as to what really happened and why. How? This is a fallen world... corrupted and it has yet to reboot.

What does the Conservative want in this fallen world? Largely, to be left to his/her faith and to be left alone in his/her relationship with the Creator, left to mind his own business and in his/her own way. This too is a kind of freedom but one that is bordered by faith, courage, integrity, prosperity, discipline, strength, patience, perseverance, stability and maturity. And, let's add to that with forgiving, respectful and brave. From where do these words come from? From the social imagination touched by the Creator that in fact there exists an absolute truth from which all other absolutes flow. This absolute truth is that there is One who was and is and will be... The Creator of all things seen and unseen and He has the con.

Does that suggest idiocracy? Imagining the Creator as an absolute being as the single most eternal being so huge that man disappears in His nostril. This vastness, this immensity in man's mind is what motives man to do what is right by the Creator and thus by man. This kind of social imagination does not negate science as God given tool to understand the Creator and His creation. This kind of social imagination also realizes that there is nothing new under the sun here and now because of this fallen 'program' world. But, in that realization is wisdom and Solomon was/is the wisest man in this fallen world. Why? Because, in this realization is the greatest revelation of all... that such a fallen world is yet bound to the absolute truth.

Friday, November 4, 2016

The racist in the selective liberal social imagination is the person that they are not which means its 'you' the person that they point out as the racist. Who is the racist according to the liberal social imagination? He/she is the person that does not tolerate liberal ideas, does not prefer liberal ideas, does not mix with, does not live near, does not hire, does not listen to, does not share with, does not vacation with, does not drive with, does not work with and does not want to ever be seen with someone who is not them. This has nothing to do with the color of skin. Yes, really!

What does it have to do with if their liberal racism is not based on color? It has to do with ideology and its mantra; hence it has to do with conformity, as in sameness and with following orders, and with doing what you are told. It has to do who you are living with, showering with, and even toileting with. It has to do with showing no initiative other than the one they give you and certainly, you must never show any smarts as in individual desire and determination to be a leader.

Racism is not about you in the sense of what you prefer to be doing, and who you prefer to be hanging with. How could it be? In that sense, everyone would be a racist. Yes, even liberal elites would be and they are. But they don't want you to know that. That use the word as a label to demonize their opponents. They know that Americans are sensitive to accusations of racism. Americans have a guilt complex and liberals use this against people so that people will move in the direction they want them to. So real racism is not their game, cause they are just as much a racist as anyone who has preferences. Again, its a label to demonize their opponents in the public market place to take and get the advantages that they want for themselves which are positions of power, prestige and privilege.

Evidence of this is observed in the African American black community today. It is far worse off now than when the liberal war on poverty began in the 60s. If that social welfare agenda was so great and so cleverly engineered and steered by them why isn't racism and poverty gone? Because, they the selective liberal elite is still alive and well - the true racist.

We forget that a fast majority of democrats were southern 'liberal elite' racists in favor of segregation that including as well as a large majority of slave holders in the south. This fact (s) have been scrubbed from history and yet the agenda is still there which was and continues to be to enslave others for the benefit of an 'their' liberal elite aristocracy. The agenda no longer just in the south. It is wherever the liberal elites are... live and work. That is why we see them against borders, against any document (s) that describes clearly what this country is and who it is in terms of the people.

It is in their business to retain labels from the past as if they disagree with them but they don't. They also create and use new labels because labels can be used to their advantage. It is the great switcheroo... They want people to forget who they are and they start with who they want you to think they were and then they make themselves into who they are today. Simultaneously, they want you to forget who you are and they start with who they want you to think you are and they make you into who they want you to be today. Hence, their 'noble' approach to this is ~ EDUCATION! indoctrination... shhhhhhh

Be wary, you might wake up and find out you are a racist though you never thought you ever were or ever wanted to be. But, you got selected!

Wednesday, November 2, 2016

First a question - Has the quality of the product kept pace with inflation? NO!!!

"Let them eat cake" was a phrase that was supposed to have come from the mouth of Marie Antoniette, the beautiful princess in love with diamonds and wealth. The fact is, she never said exactly that. As far as we know, the saying came from another similar phrase put out by Rousseau's illustration of a princess who was indifferent to the plight of the poor. And so, because of her known attitude and or life loving liberal character, it became her 'hashtag'.

The saying in French means to let them eat buns-rolls. The fact is, Marie Antoniette was probably not totally indifferent to the poor, she just did not understand economics. She thought if she could have so could everyone else. Its the limousine socialist liberal mindset. She was not the only one in France living the good life so to speak. But, eventually, being foreign born, she would take the fall.

As it was put forward during her time of limousine socialists, according to French law to feed the poor, the view and agenda was to subdue the profit making French bakeries. But, what happened as the law was followed was that bakeries went into financial ruin. No one was left to pay and the rich would not pay for poor quality bread/buns which no longer could be made by the bakers since they had no many to pay for any quality ingredients since there were so many not paying for their buns and those that could pay would not pay for poor quality.

The entire system was jeopardized. Hence, Marie lost her head... not necessarily by the rich and elite (though they gave the decree) but because of their liberal mindset. She was beheaded by the masses who demanded that the bakeries come back even if they could not afford to eat cake... at least the bakery was and something was in the bakery they could buy. And, someone higher up had to take the fall for poisoning the top positions in the French royalty.

As Goldberg writes on page 174, "Let them eat cake' has come to symbolize how rich do-gooders think rich conservatives see the world and how rich do-gooders screw things up by creating compassionate schemes that only make things worse for the poor. Goldberg asks us in his book [The Tyranny of Cliches...] to remember the housing laws put forward to combat homelessness. In Washington, D.C. the city council passed an ordinance in 1984, guaranteeing shelter for everyone. Within tow years the number of homeless families living in government shelters rose 500 percent. One woman called D.C. authorities telling them she had just enough savings to cover the flight for her and her children and asked them to reserve her free housing.

Not that anyone wants a woman and her children on the streets but the point is that once everyone gets wind of a free house and who wouldn't want that especially when there will be fewer and fewer people able to pay for houses period as the quality goes down but the price goes up due to inflation. Which is not caused by the rich but by the middle class who start demanding their life style be like the rich and begin spending on credit for things they could not afford as 'true ' middle class. They want their cake too!

Who then gets the bill for those houses? Remember, the rich are really a minority and their money is kept under lock and key because they are a minority and know it. So, whose money gets used in the end - yours/mine. Yes, taxes for everyone and soon everyone will run out of money since only the elite minority are smart enough to not pay and get out while the getting is good. Somehow, liberal rich do-gooders seem to forget that. They seem to think that everyone will jump on board with their liberal do-gooder agenda. And, maybe many would but if the rich do-gooders are few then who pays? Again... you/me.

Yet, the rich do-gooders still claim to be the voice of the people so that they can control the politicians who will promise them to keep their minority money in hiding... a good place is in a foundation i.e. And though the rich do-gooder feels guilty he/she feels justified in protecting his/her own. They feel better when they call out "Let them eat cake too". Little do they know that by doing so, they make matters worse. Why? Again, the government's money 'yours/mine' will be used not theirs.

Who are these rich do-gooders? Aren't they the rich cooperate executives? Some are and some aren't. The crop is really in Hollywood as Goldberg points. The people communicate to them that they are special though many may not even have higher education. They are treated like royalty by the people, and perhaps it truly is the people that want them to yell and like when they do yell... "Let them eat cake". It seems to make it right that their nobility speaks for them.

In fact, its all in the social imagination, isn't it? The rich, the middle class (wanna be rich) and the poor and those on their way down to being poor seem to be as much a part of their own problems as anyone and everyone. And, when the system looks like it will collapse, there will be a head to be lost, someone will be the scape-goat for all.

The people created an image ...
Because of the signs it was given to
perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived those who dwell on
the earth, telling them to make an image to the beast that had been
wounded by the sword and yet had lived. The second beast was permitted
to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image would
also speak and cause all who refused to worship it to be killed. And the
second beast required all people small and great, rich and poor, free
and slave, to receive a mark on their right hand or on their
forehead,…Revelation 13:14-16.

Wednesday, October 26, 2016

Today's blog is simply re-posting the most brilliant analysis of social justice ever. Jonah Jacob Goldberg, age 47, is an American conservative syndicated columnist, author and commentator. Goldberg writes about politics and culture for National Review, where he is a Senior Editor. He is the author of these books: Liberal Fascism (2008) and The Tyranny of Cliches: How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas (2012). In the later publication, we find a chapter called - Social Justice. It is incredibly insightful and eye-opening.

From the chapter - "Social Justice", from 'Tyranny of Cliches' by Jonah J. Goldberg, we read about the great deception which is about making the world into a liberal utopia whereby everyone gets what they want when they want it if we only just educate, indoctrinate, brainwash in order to convince people of their 'right' laws which holds up their all benevolent social justice. Its just empty vessel ...an ideology that crept in long ago and its deployment in the making for some time.

It was really had to pick and choose which pages to share. In an attempt to summarize and blend some of Goldberg's observations with my own, this is what was arrived at. However, it would be better to suggest reading the entire book or at least this entire chapter. In a nutshell, provided here is what can very well be understood as the fundamental foundation of 'social justice'.

Of course, social justice as it sounds was and remains a humanitarian dialogue; and that's about it. Why? Because, in a fallen world it is not possible to be god. The discussion began in the Catholic church going back to 1840. Ironically, the intention may have been innocent but it was born of evil as it puts man at the helm of this fallen world. It leaves God out of the picture, out of the greater good (which He is). We know that this world is passing away and it must as it is fallen and under the law of sin and death. Perhaps, that naive beginning, born of evil, has its purpose too. As we can observe today, it has been adopted by the Left and made into their liberal mission statement which promises a utopia here and now... exactly what Satan wants us to believe. Maybe its part of the great deception.

As it is often put forward and could have one thinking ...the millennium has already started and it began when the social justice movement appeared on the horizon back in 1840. This is what some would like us to believe... that the new heaven and earth are just around the corner; in fact, herald in after the next election if only the democrats get in. But for those of us that are Biblical literate, the second coming has not happened yet nor has the rapture. So, no this is not the millennium - the thousand year reign prior to the new heaven and new earth.

How to not be deceived? Whenever man does not give credit to God and takes it for himself as if he is his own savior, we should be wary. What tells us that there is a strong movement to deceive? Look around. We see this in the mission statements of universities and colleges. For example, The social justice disposition of Brooklyn College has four pillars of their conceptual framework. They say: "We educate teacher candidates and other school personnel about issues of social injustice such as institutionalized racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism and invite them to develop strategies and practices that challenge such biases - pg. 137.

Many universities around the country are such advocating social justice and at the same time diversity. Sounds fair, right? But, realistically, how can we have social justice for all differences and appreciate all those differences if the goal is to be fair for everyone.

Again... As Goldberg writes on page 137, the phrase social justice means everything. Its wants everyone to be happy, to enjoy life being whoever they are and doing whatever they want as long as it is not about conflict... that is conflicting with this/their mantra which is that social justice demands a chicken in every pot but never has a practical means to do it. It always comes back to 'education'. If we just educate. Sorry, to say but most people don't even know how to cook a chicken in a pot knowing that it will be chicken soup.

It is ideological, it wants everything good for everybody and all at the same time or so we are led to believe. How is that possible? Its not... not in this fallen world. The liberal social justice agenda in this country wants to and assumes all kinds of rights: social rights, economic rights etc. Goldberg asks us to think of it this way... the Bill of Rights is framed in the negative because your rights are prior and independent from the government. Hence, "Congress shall make no law..." infringing on this or that right". It means that the government cannot promise all kinds of rights to everyone. Get it?

Whereas a social justice bill of rights might begin, "Government must provide a home, a car, a job, French bulldog puppy, and whatever else. As Goldberg points, you cannot truly have such rights because you are not born with them, as if then they have to be protected. You are not born with an inalienable right to a home. If yes, then why not an inalienable right to a hovercraft or jetpack? ~ Goldberg pgs.142-43.

The fundamental problem with such wide applications of social justice is that there are no limiting principles. There could not be. That's right. Because, every individual in a fallen world is able to demand anything as his/her right - social justice as far as the eye can see pg 144. Given that and being born in a fallen world such social justice would guarantee that evil wins.

Ultimately, social justice is about empire building, Goldberg on pg. 145. Keep in mind that the Roman Empire was sustained by the 'idea of Rome' which always fell far short of the reality. They always promised to build a better world but never had the foggiest idea how to do it. The Romans knew how to build roads, and toilets; all the centurions of social justice know how to provide using someone else's money. Its imperialism fueled by guilt and sustained by smugness. But it is successful. Theses centurions and citizens of social justice, run our schools, our charities, our newspapers (our banks) and if they have their way... our world ~ Jonah J. Goldberg pg. 146.

Monday, October 24, 2016

Who wouldn't wanna be a liberal, right? Especially, if you can wear flip flops to work and don't have to get there til 10 as long as you do your job, right? Who wouldn't wanna be a sexual non-descript, a thing but not anything in particular. Sexually, what's one from another... sleeping with anything and everything that turns your head or turns you on; using whatever bathroom or fire-hydrant, bus-stop, tree or bush you want when you want it? Who wouldn't want the government to pay for all the utility bills especially water, and rent and a bad decision or an abortion? The toilet thing is the most liberating/freeing. For example, my newbie immigrant neighbor peed against his fence yesterday... never mind was in the yard with full view. Its all about freedom and toleration in the liberal mindset.

A liberal we all wanna be but yet something in us should tell us that we cannot or should not; unless, one is just a total conformist, a fly by night cause you sleep all day, a political agitator that gets paid to do it, a person that is just a person that's all and for being just that thinks that he/she should get all the attention that a person justly deserves. But, isn't society at large really just made of 'persons'. So, what's the problem with being liberal? There is no problem. Yes, and that's the beauty of the liberal mind... there is no problem. The liberal is a sea of persons in which no one can expect anything from you or demand anything from you or want or need or even ask for anything from you. The liberal is and that's just it. Get it?

The liberal is like a flower, it is like the rain, it is like a season, it is like the sun, it is like nature, it is a plain ole thing. But, how would that be if it were what it still likes to think of itself as... an evolving person/animal/thing? If it can think and do something then it is either evolving or already evolved. But, if the liberal is just a flower or the rain, a season, the sun or even nature at large then it can't really think or do anything for itself and it certainly doesn't want to and probably doesn't have to thus - it must already be evolved. Its already in the perfect state of mind And, that's the key to understanding the liberal mind and the wanna be liberal mind. The liberal is happy to be in the perfect state with the state of his/her being in harmony with the state of its being.

Who wouldn't wanna be that? In that state of being, no one would be different or have to be recognized or labeled as different. What for? In fact, there would no longer be anything or any reason to tolerate... put up with since the liberal is the perfect state. Would you be able to sing a different song, walk to a different tune/drum, or just stand out as being different? No! What for? That would destroy the harmony of the liberal mindset and liberal being. If one light goes out among its sameness, there is already one just like it in place. No one would even notice. Cause if you did, things wouldn't be the same anymore!

If we were to be different, then we would have to come back to accepting our differences! And, that is not what we want. What liberals really want is tolerance for their evil sameness. But, you say they are not about evil nor about sameness, they are about totally being free and that's different. Yes and No. For sure, they are not about being different. They want sameness of the worse kind. Total liberty, in fact unchecked freedoms. Their goal maybe even unknowingly becomes a sea of perversion, a sea of unrestricted evil cause its all about freeing of reprobate mind- Romans 1:28.

And worse yet, we would have to come back to 'their' toleration of everything and everybody. But, would that be nice. They really want tulips, daises and daffodils mixed in with cosmos, roses, and weeds. Some of you think may think this is exactly the liberal but its not. The liberal wants toleration but will not tolerate anyone against their freedoms, their corrupted social imagination which puts sameness first because what they want tolerated no one really wants to put with.

Can conservatives like things the same? Yes, if it means established solid social platforms to be used as a means of departure so that interaction can take place where difference exist. Such platforms provide an interactive social arena which give definition to groups interacting within and provide boundaries of behavior... a means to be different within borders. This gives stability to a group any group that socially identifies who it is and is not among other groups that it encounters. In this way, all groups know what they are putting up with and what they knowingly what be able to put up with. What is the solution in that case... join groups that are like minded and be happy! Oh, that's bad that's self segregation. Someone yells..."What if they lash out at others that are not like them"? Yes, that is the liberal retort...

What if!!!! Well, FYI, there are decent laws in place for most what ifs. Most of which come under the most 'liberal' of Constitutions to believe it or not. Its a fair social contract with civil liberties that most different types and groups can appreciate as it serves the majority as well as minority, and it has served for more than 200 years. People don't really change. There is nothing new under the sun -Ecclesiastes 1:9. Why? Because, this is not a perfect world, its a fallen world and no man can engineer it perfectly for every man on the face of the earth. Somehow... liberals believe that. If I didn't know any better, I would wanna be a liberal.

Friday, October 21, 2016

The foundation of any social imagination is its constituents. Those that compose it, make it something that has definition and borders. Anything that is something has definition and borders otherwise it wouldn't be anything. Some call this society, culture, or in-group. Though others maybe outside of one group they are certainly part of another group. No man is an island. And no man wants to be an island. Everyone wants to be part of a group. The tighter the group, the safer one feels and becomes thus reasonably behaved. They know who they are and are not. They are comfortable and at ease, without stress... one of the guys/gals.

Now if something creeps into the group or is even invited in based on false assumptions, then that something can be seen as foreign, and then the stress levels starts to rise. As as a means to cope, toleration is employed; with the idea and assumption that it will soon leave or be integrated. Some imagine that being tolerant in this situation is freeing... really? Tolerant as a phrasal verb means putting up with. Perhaps, in some instances it is wise to tolerate as an advantage is seen in doing so. But, for long periods of time with loss of expectations as to why tolerating is wise ...if continued, then one can expect negative outcomes.

Toleration is subjective and objective. One can apply toleration when necessary and reap the benefits or not and move on. Objectively, any one person or animal can only tolerate for so long. An old dog can only put up with a child on its tail for so long. Anyone can observe this... and being objective about it.

In social interaction, objectively speaking when we observe 'social' evolution, we see that the group that succeeds does so not tolerating too much. In fact, amounts of toleration can be part of the ploy to conquer its competition and then take any spoils. There is another maneuver by less aggressive types which would be to evade such an encounter and just hide out or move out of the way so as not to be conquered or eaten up. Tolerating is the later... putting up with something in order to stay alive or in the circle of the higher ups, the eaters.

So, in a social situation 'society' who is always calling for toleration? The lower echelons or the higher ups - elites. The lower are wiser and move out of the way. The higher ups - elites, cannot tolerate very much so they deploy it as a tactic. This way they can round up and pen up the weaker who are already applying toleration and will be willing to tolerate even more - putting up with whatever the elites tell them to tolerate. Those that won't tolerate are shown to be the aggressive 'bully' types when the real bullies are those pulling the strings at the top. Will the non aggressive types ever stop tolerating them? If they did, they would not be weaker anymore they would have joined the aggressive types ... that never would put up with simply tolerating anything anymore. No longer willing to be trapped by deployed toleration!

And we are back to the in-group. Elites are in-groups too as much as any group is having members. They get stressed out too when foreigners enter. But, does that mean we have to tolerate for them? Does it mean we have to put up with something so that they either don't have to and they can rake in the benefits of our toleration?

Is this/that a call for zero for toleration? No... every group knows how much it can tolerate.

No man is an island and no man wants anyone to take his island ...his comfort. And no man wants to put up with anything if he/she does not have to.

Thursday, October 6, 2016

In a an article by Liz Goodwin, Senior National Affairs
Reporter, one can read that the former secretary of state argued for a volunteer plan that would help combat growing self-segregation in
America, where people surround themselves with people who think, talk,
look and read the same news as them. H.C. stated clearly ...“That comes with a cost, it
magnifies our differences,” she said, adding that the election has drawn
attention to that trend. And, adding...“Then it makes it harder to put those
differences aside when our country needs us.” ~ HC

This organization would be called “Reservists” and under Hillary Clinton’s plan they would respond to natural disasters,
help the homeless or tackle other local problems, the campaign said.
Under the plan, they would be eligible for college credit, time off from
work, or even a “modest stipend,” based on financial need, to
participate in the reserve. (Clinton will negotiate with higher
education institutions and corporations to get those benefits.) Not really volunteers as promoted but lured by treats and money.

Such a plan as it was once before is to ban self-segregation... and it begins with their version of education.

The question one should ask- Tackle what local problems? Don't we have a democratic republic for the people and by the people? Yes. Is it flawed? Yes. Why? Because this is a fallen world and the reboot hasn't happened yet. One should wonder what local problems HC is talking about if the Federal government has to take over the job that is every Americans' duty - to build up their own communities from the grass roots.

The claim is that people are not able to and it is suggested that diversity is the cause of the problem of self segregating. Really? Diversity does mean differences but given our American social contract - Civil Liberties, and accepting that, we should and we do get along. As for the argument of self segregating. Well we all do it.

We all socially set ourselves a part because it rests on a deeply embedded premise... identity. Who am I and who am I not. We want to be liked, we want to be part of the in-group. We should this in many forms of social interaction from choosing and buying thus owning the latest social media technology. We dress ourselves up in certain clothes, shoes and ladies who doesn't gotta have the latest Coach handbag or Victoria's Secret bra. Not to mention certain t-shirts with trendy phrases printed on them with the tag on the outside showing the brand name label with a price tag over $30/40.

Its not just religion that causes people to be of a certain mindset. Its many other aspects of everyday life lived in a group. Its status, its prestige, its who you know. We all want to be an individual and yet a member of the group. People, being social creatures, naturally gravitate toward like minded people. Isn't that really the agenda of the DNC under HC... we want you to think like this and not like that. They self segregate for their purposes... its human nature.

Erase this from humankind and we get robots... so, let the good come with the bad and the ugly. The world will be more human than inhuman. Its a slippery slope to think that a certain person or agenda has all the answers for life on earth.

Tuesday, October 4, 2016

In Jonah Goldberg's, a New York Times Best Selling author, book - The Tyranny of Cliches, we can read on page 92, that diversity is an abracadabra word that magically makes inconvenient facts disappear and forces everyone to get in line. Diversity means differences and that means being uncomfortable in the midst of it. The United States of America was known as a melting pot where differences could melt into a unified entity - the American.

Isn't that what the ruling elite, our politicians and educators want today... a non self segregating all around American who loves his/her country and believes that the government is for the people? It seems that is what they want but then why do they go about with diversity on their lips? Isn't it then a means to control certain groups, to label them to their own advantage? You see, they don't imagine a diverse multi cultural entity that blends and smooths things out for itself. Why? Because, then their power would be lost. Who would need them, right?

They make the claim that Diversity makes us stronger... It can make them stronger. As just stated above, if they do the labeling, they get to control what they label. Nevertheless, diversity as a plus can be argued on both sides of the coin. It does if we think about diversity in a stock report or investor portfolio but if we want to have a solid piece of steel we won't mix clay with it... they don't cleave. But, they continue to make the argument that diversity is useful in groupthink. Ok, but How???

People can bring up different issues pertaining to their spheres of knowledge and know how, which includes their cultural data; but if we have our own spheres of knowledge and know how in a cultural context then how do we appreciate each other's differences... the different meanings that can be applied? Then we cannot really apply diversity if in that there exists different meaning for different groups. So, the agenda must be to make everyone the same but in a way that they think its all about diversity.

As Goldberg points out in his book, on page 96, there is a deeper level to the agenda of such diversity. Its about power and because of that it gives power to the social engineers. Which is true as I was kicked off the dept for stating exactly that. As Goldberg continues, and I agree, by making diversity a compelling state interest or social imperative, someone has to decide what does or does not count as beneficial diversity and that someone is invariable a social engineer like Lee Bollinger at the University of Michigan who assigned a numerical value to the race of applicants. If you oppose such narrow schemes, then you are against diversity which is in some circles code for racist [pg. 97].

The irony regarding that the popular creation of a particular student group with special events connected to that group being different. Moreover, faculty and administration thereby actually encourage differences and labeling. But, again this is their way of controlling. Don't forget they are part of the system of elite control.

Robert Putnam a liberal sociologist from Harvard discovered that diverse communities become frayed. People end up bowling alone as social trust plummets [pg. 98].

In my own research conducted for the study of the western social imagination, the results showed that people though likely diversity being out there... they did not want it at home so to speak. They described their ideal soceity as cohesive and in solidarity via social contract and similar belief system. Not much living the diversity though having access to it would be acceptable if there was ever a need to change things up a bit.

I am sure that you have observed that pizza in America is not the same as pizza in Naples or Chinese food as we would experience in China. We like to know that there is variety if we want to add some to our own life. But, just because you put a certain sauce or spice on your food does not mean it has the same taste, or meaning in your life as it does in the place of its origin.

* Source ~ The Tyranny of Cliches, How Liberals Cheat in the War of Ideas. By Jonah Goldberg:2013

Thursday, September 29, 2016

Nowhere is the word "democracy" mentioned in the Declaration of
Independence or the U.S. Constitution. How could that be? Our government
is a democracy! Well, for one, as we'll discuss later, the Founders actually feared democratic rule. James Madison expressed this attitude in Federalist #10:
"...instability, injustice, and confusion ...have in truth been the
mortal disease under which popular governments everywhere perished..."
In the late 18th-century, rule by the
people was thought to lead to disorder and disruption. Yet a
democratically-based government was seen as superior to the monarchies
of Europe.

Democracies did not originate with the founding of the United States.
The term "democracy" comes from two Greek words: "demos" (the people)
and ""kratia" (power or authority). So of course democracy
is a form of government that gives power to the people. But how, when,
and to which people? The answer to those questions changes through
history.

Democracies are based on "rule of law." The ancient Greeks (particularly Aristotle) valued natural law,
the notion that human societies should be governed by ethical
principles found in nature. The Greeks are famous for practicing direct democracy,
a system in which citizens meet to discuss all policy, and then make
decisions by majority rule. However, only free males were considered to
be citizens. So their democracy was certainly limited. Today direct
democracy is practiced in New England town meetings, where all citizens
of voting age meet to decide important political decisions.

But how could direct democracy work in a large, diverse population
spread over a geographical distance? Generally, the answer has been that
it can't. In its place, the American Founders put "indirect" or "representative" democracy. In this system, representatives
are chosen by the people to make decisions for them. The representative
body, then, becomes a manageable size for doing the business of
government. The Founders preferred the term "republic"
to "democracy" because it described a system they generally preferred:
the interests of the peopled were represented by more knowledgeable or
wealthier citizens who were responsible to those that elected them.

Today we tend to use the terms "republic" and "democracy"
interchangeably. A widespread criticism of representative democracy is
that the representatives become the "elites" that seldom consult
ordinary citizens, so even though they are elected, a truly
representative government doesn't really exist.

What many Americans would naively wish for a direct democracy. But, as you just read in a large diverse country direct democracy is not feasible. Of course, that wish stems from the idea that even our representative government doesn't' really exist. Really??? Yes! The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite. So, concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.

Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized
groups representing business interests have substantial independent
impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based
interest groups have little or no independent influence.

Wednesday, September 28, 2016

Not long ago I wrote about how labels in the social imagination are used to control people. The complete irony is that those who love labels (Progressives) have an agenda "Say No to Labels". Why? Because they don't want labels put on them which would obviously tell you more about them than they want you to know. The first American to come to mind is LBJ.

"I don't believe in labels. I want to do the best I can, all the time. I want to be progressive without getting both fee off the ground at the same time. I want to be prudent without having my mind closed to anything that is new or different. I have often said that I was proud that I was a free man first (no kidding... a white male from Texas) and an American second, and a public servant third and a Democrat fourth... finally calling himself a prudent progressive ~ " Lyndon B. John, Television and Radio Address March 15, 1964.

What praises he got and continues to get for that by his fellow progressives. Yet, no one seems to have paid attention to the order of his labeling. 1st, a free man, 2nd an American, 3rd a public servant and lastly a Democrat. His priority is being a free man, thirdly a public servant... that should tell you something about progressives; especially the prudent ones - judicious in practical affairs. Sounds reasonable to have good judgement in practical affairs but given the number one label here is being a 'Free man'. Knowing that this is a fallen world, all men are not as altruistic as we would like to think. It means that 'I come first', and first was used in the phraseology.

A group of 'freethinkers' from New York decided to create an organization back in 2010 called what else... 'No Labels'. There motto - "put labels aside and do what is best for America". Certainly, if they were really about being Americans (as a label for all) first and foremost, then I could agree. However, that is not their agenda. Their agenda is to label according to their agenda because they know very well that labeling is a means to discern and from that we understand what to expect. They want us to expect certain things from them only and expect nothing else from no one else. To live in a gray zone with pop outs that they control.

Think about like this... if a man pretends to be a dentist because we don't want to use labels to describe him, then would you risk an office visit in a world with 'no labels'? Or, what if you were to go into your pantry or medicine cabinet and rip off all the labels... could you or your children accidentally mix up something edible/helpful with something not?

That does sound a bit exaggerated but grounded in a very real sense which is that we need labels. But, you might say ...hey, we are talking about unfair labels that some people put on other people. OK, so we can't call a thief a thief or a murderer a murderer, a pedophile a pedophile, or a liar a liar, a scam artist a scam artist, or a vagrant a vagrant etc. Maybe that is unfair. Oh, you meat that we can't label someone a racist, right? No, you say because a racist is a racist and should be labeled as such. You see, that's the progressive agenda. The right labels apply...

They don't want certain labels because they know that labels work for them and they want to control them. They want to clear away our fundamental objections to make way for what they really want. When such people say, "we need to get beyond labels, we need to put away labels." What that really means is that they want you to put away your labels so that they can continue to use theirs for their program unimpeded.

Keep in mind, this organization of people (couldn't we label them 'prudent progressives' that want us to put away our labels, follow the benchmark set back in 1964, "First, I am a free man", second an American, third a public servant and fourth a democrat. When someone puts their freedom first (not someone else's) then we should wonder about their patriotism, their public service and devotion to being a democrat.

Am I for labels? Yes, I guess I should be if I were a progressive because the right labels do serve the greater good as they by nature we socially set ourselves apart with labels; hence, its built into our evolution, isn't it? However, knowing what and who we are and are not is not necessary in natural selection. Is it human then to not label as we cannot know who we truly are and will become? So... don't label me an intellectual or rich or poor or stupid or selfish, or a thief or anything because it does not really matter now, in this present state. Nature, as Progressives and Darwinists favor, would not need or use labels because its really about the evolution of the state!

But, if we consider that in Jesus Christ all are equal, the only label is His! "The creation waits in eager expectation for the revelation of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not by its own will, but because of the One who subjected it in hope that
the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and
brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God".…~ Romans 8:20. Only He can set us free and in Him we are free indeed... free from man's labels and man's state of labels!

* Source ~ Jonah Goldberg's "The Tyranny of Cliches" a New York Times Best Seller!

About Me

A Godly Woman

Reveling in the Word

As a Christian Sociologist, a defender of the faith I am but no contender of it as in fighting over it nor fighting people for it. There is no reason to fight over or about anything... only to love. This is realized when one embraces the knowledge that Jesus Christ came to die for our sins and give us life eternal. Yes, there is a fight and it is ours. When called, to be chosen and to be and remain faithful.

Reveling in the Word of God brings me joy, peace and rest. It is not to woo anyone with my knowledge or great argument for faith in a creator and salvation. For all who are called and chosen will hear the Word of God for themselves and be wooed by it! And, be faithful to it.